The UN “disappears” yet another inconvenient climate claim, and once again, botches the cover up

It seems there’s a purge on at the UN to remove failed climate claims. Last week it was the 50 million climate refugees that never materialized and was covered up, this week it’s the poor of Africa they’ve “disappeared”.  This one I stumbled upon quite by accident, doing some research for my previous story: World opinion on global warming: not so hot

In it I noted this – Lawrence Solomon makes an observation:

In Sub-Saharan Africa, where 54% are not aware that their climate is alleged to be warming, a mere 22% have heard of the global warming issue and predominantly blame humans for the warming. In undeveloped Asia, 48% are unaware that the climate is warming and 27% predominantly blame humans.

I wondered about the 54% in Africa saying:

But one has to wonder, if the people that live closest to the earth (such as natives in sub-Saharan Africa) can’t detect changes around them, are we manufacturing a crisis that we wouldn’t notice otherwise?

So I decided to ask the question: How hard is Africa being hit by climate change? I recalled a catchphrase “Africa hit hard by global warming” that I had read before, so I decided to start with that. My first Google search produced the answer in the form of a UNEP report from 2001, except…. the report isn’t there. But, according to Google cache, it was there just a few days ago. See the process of discovery below.

OK so I visited that web page: http://hqweb.unep.org/documents.Multilingual/default.asp

It is a document aggregation page, full of reports and speeches going back to 2000. But I couldn’t locate any press release from February 2001 as stated in the Google search above.

So I decided to search on that title specifically:

And it gives me the same page, where that doesn’t exist that I can find. Odd.

Then I recalled that UNEP provided a site specific Google search on that page under the header, so I tried that, simply searching for “africa hit hardest”

Bingo. It gave me a URL with a document ID:

http://www.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=192&ArticleID=2776&l=en

And when I clicked on that…amazingly, it returned me to the default document page:

http://hqweb.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp

Try it yourself. Hmmm. That sort of redirect to a default page usually occurs when the internal web page engine can’t find the document requested. On some websites, they trap 404 errors, then redirect so the end user isn’t dumped along the side of the information superhighway. I thought, well, it is a 10 year old document, maybe it was simply deleted on the 10 year mark automatically? Well no, they have this from the year 2000 on that page:

So it could not be some sort of date related automatic deletion of a 2001 document.

Then I recalled that my first search attempt showed a “cached” version, so I decided to check that. Sure enough, it was in Google cache, and it was a capture from April 17th, 2011, just a few days ago. Here it is:

Even if you click on the link at the top of the page cited by Google cache, it takes you to the UNEP default page. So clearly, the article has disappeared from the website.

Curiously, just 5 days after the last snapshot taken by Google cache was saved, April 22nd, the Gallup poll comes out:

And in that Gallup poll website, there’s this inconvenient table:

Which begs the question: If Africans are the “hardest hit by global warming” according to the UN, how can only 54% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa be unaware of it (and only 49% of  Middle East and North Africans)?

Of course, the UN helpfully provided the answer by attempting to disappear it right after the Gallup poll came out. They aren’t aware of it because the “hitting hard” of global warming in Africa simply isn’t happening.

Another bogus climate claim rubbished by reality.

===============================================================

For those interested, I have recovered the full report and have placed it in a PDF document here: UNEP_press_release_Feb22-2001

About these ads
This entry was posted in Alarmism, Climate FAIL and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

109 Responses to The UN “disappears” yet another inconvenient climate claim, and once again, botches the cover up

  1. Jeremy says:

    Also, Someone at the LA times took notice of the blogosphere’s notice of the non-missing 50 million climate refugees:

    http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg-climate-change-20110426,0,3346901.column

    Probably the most fair op-ed in the LA Times I’ve seen on Climate change since the whole nonsense started.

  2. bubbagyro says:

    Same thing happens with a Bing search.

  3. James Sexton says:

    The history of the deceptive practices in the climate discussion is mind-boggling. Not that there are people always willing to deceive people, (for various reasons), but the willingness of others to accept the statements of people that habitually act to deceive them.

    On an opposite note, Paul @ WoodForTrees has finally updated the satellite temp RSS 3.3 and UAH 5.4!!! Yea!!!

  4. DirkH says:

    “Which begs the question: If Africans are the “hardest hit by global warming” according to the UN, how can only 54% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa be aware of it?”

    You should change it to 46%, Anthony. 54% are unaware.

    REPLY: Fixed thanks, should have said “unaware” – Anthony

  5. Frostbite says:

    That´s a kind of poll on the global penetration of liberal ideas…:-)

  6. Green Sand says:

    There you go, coming over all logical again!

    Mr Watts, it is the Thought Police and Romm 101 for you!

  7. DJ says:

    You’ll notice that “result of human activities” belief is highest where advertising and publicity are highest, and coincidentally, in regions where taxation needs are most easily met by swaying public opinion.

    The other regions don’t need to sway public opinion, they simply take the money they need. That, and there just may be far more pressing issues, like tribal/religious warfare.

    What’s also lacking here is the raw numbers of the polls including the demographics. I’d suggest a FOIA, but we all know where that’d lead..

  8. Hal says:

    “Please move along. Please disperse. Nothing to see here. Nothing to see here.”

  9. bubbagyro says:

    With books, in the past we could always get the hard copy, and look back and see the fantastic Malthusian predictions of Ehrlich, and the hilarious projections of the “futurists” like the late, great Arthur C. Clarke or Isaac Asimov. I really thought that we would have cities in the sky serviced by magnetic cars by 2001, and everyone would be in monosex jumpsuits with high collars.

    Now we look back at that era and just say it was just silly fantasy, and that we have better special effects today. But the graphics-created worlds we don’t take seriously any more.

    So why does anyone in their right mind take seriously the “futurists” of today? Especially since the world of the future they create is a catastrophic doomsday?

  10. Richard111 says:

    54% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa (be) {ARE NOT} aware of it

    I have a sinking feeling the word will soon get round if they think money may be available.

  11. ZT says:

    Interestingly – if you start to disappear articles – you start to kick away parts of the carefully built edifice. This October 2009 ‘US Aid from the American People’, ‘Climate Change, Adaptation, and Conflict:A Preliminary Review of the Issues’ report refers to the now missing UNEP document:

    http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/conflict/publications/docs/CMMDiscussionPaper1ClimateChangeAdaptationandConflict.pdf

    Does that mean that this report should be withdrawn too?

  12. Smokey says:

    bubbagyro:

    Proof

  13. Jeremy says:

    doh. I said non-missing when I meant invisible.

    If they’re non-missing refugees are they simply well-accounted-for refugees? :)

  14. hatethescammers says:

    [snip - bogus email address, valid email required to comment - Anthony]

  15. Russell C says:

    This is a hallmark for our AGW friends. The IPCC’s idea of man-caused global warming is riddled with so many faults, it’s a wonder it has stood up for such a long time. But, the effort has not been to shore it up, it’s been to distract the public away from the faults – so they accuse skeptic scientists of corruption, they hide the enviro-advocacy roots of organizations that helped multiple state governors implement greenhouse reduction plans, they refuse to engage in debates, they dodge FOIA requests, on and on.

    One of these days, the tide of public opinion will turn in spectacular fashion, as more and more people ask our AGW friends a simple question: “Why are you unable or unwilling to defend your underlying science?”

  16. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    The IPCC should add a whole new chapter to their 5th report now in production . . . List all the moonbat AGW claims and UN Special reports and which ones have come true and which ones have been disappeared.

  17. Smokey says:

    The UN/IPCC is a taxpayer-funded propaganda outlet pushing “climate change” with the goal of taxing “carbon.” It is a situation very similar to the BBC’s support of extremist causes using public funding.

  18. Gary says:

    Winston Smith should be fired for this. ;-)

  19. Jim G says:

    Anthony,

    Your site is bursting my bubble. It is windy, snowing and 30 degrees F again today, April 27, and we have been counting on a little global warming. Have not seen much of it this year as yet. As improbable as the “science” is on this subject, it would be nice if it actually occured a little here in Wyoming. In past years we would get a few warm days and a few cold days April and May. This year, so far, mostly cold. And with the minimal solar maximum I am expecting it will probably only get worse.

  20. Montag says:

    Yeah! An did you know 100% of newborn babies today have never heard of global warming?

    I think you are really on to something here, Anthony. Take lead poisoning, for example. If people have been hit hard by lead poisoning ever since the ancient Greeks, how come they have not been aware of the harm caused by exposure to even small amounts of lead? Surely, lead poisoning must be a myth! Another bogus claim rubbished by reality. Will you write a post about that on this fine science blog?

    Isn’t the UNEP press release simply referring to a report by IPCC’s Working Group II? I reckon this means that reports by IPCC’s WGII have been withdrawn?

    REPLY: Oh please. More whining from an anonymous detractor. Explain then why on April 17th that press release existed, and a few days later it does not, especially when there are other documents on the website that are older? The UN isn’t stupid enough to remove the WGII report, but apparently they ARE stupid enough to start removing (twice now) other documents that make bold claims that have not been proven true after years.

    -Anthony

  21. Doug Proctor says:

    The disconnect with models and reality is coming hard. Hyperbole is good for TV drama and grant applications, but not so good for scientific reputations.

    I’m looking forward to the sea level update. Although we know where that trend is going (unless they decide that the satellites are simply not reporting properly).

  22. HaroldW says:

    Anthony -
    I think the report referred to is simply the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR), Working Group II volume.

    The cached press release referred to a report by “IPCC’s WG II” (not a UNEP report). At http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/004.htm , it’s noted that the TAR WG2 report was accepted at a meeting 13-16 Feb 2001, which fits with the timeline of a report released on or about 22 Feb.

    REPLY: No, there’s a specific press release gone missing, which was there April 17th but not today, which I recovered. See the PDF link at the end of my article – Anthony

  23. Theo Goodwin says:

    DJ says:
    April 27, 2011 at 9:39 am
    “You’ll notice that “result of human activities” belief is highest where advertising and publicity are highest, and coincidentally, in regions where taxation needs are most easily met by swaying public opinion.”

    I wonder if it is also true that belief in warming is lowest in areas where a large percentage of people work the land.

  24. Martin Brumby says:

    @Montag says: April 27, 2011 at 10:15 am
    “Yeah! An did you know 100% of newborn babies today have never heard of global warming?”

    Ho Ho. What a rib-tickler! You are a wag, Montag!

    What the hell has this got to do with UNEP deleting “inconvenient” shroud waving projections which crashed and burned when confronted by reality?

    Go troll somewhere else.

  25. Theo Goodwin says:

    Montag says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:15 am

    “I think you are really on to something here, Anthony. Take lead poisoning, for example. If people have been hit hard by lead poisoning ever since the ancient Greeks, how come they have not been aware of the harm caused by exposure to even small amounts of lead?”

    The analogy fails. In the case of rising temperatures in areas where most people work the land, most will recognize the effects of rising temperatures, if temperatures rise enough to have effects. By contrast, the vast majority of people could not identify the effects of lead poisoning even when those effects were huge.

  26. Tom T says:

    Jeremy: It wasn’t really someone at the LA times. This is an op ed by Jonas Goldberg a conservative columnist.

  27. Martin Brumby says:

    Looking at the Gallup Poll, I fear Australasia has also gone missing.

    A curious result from “Developed Asia”. Even more loony Green than Western Europe and Canada. Latin America have also bought into the snake oil.

  28. jorgekafkazar says:

    Montag says: “…If people have been hit hard by lead poisoning ever since the ancient Greeks, how come they have not been aware of the harm caused by exposure to even small amounts of lead? Surely, lead poisoning must be a myth!”

    False analogy.

  29. Taphonomic says:

    As a side note on revised web pages, the page at:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/

    has been modified. It used to have a clickable link showing all of the grants that had been awarded to CRU UEA. This link is now inactive. I wonder why CRU UEA doesn’t want the public to know what grants they have? Maybe something to do with the granting organizations requiring data be public or fear of people submitting FOIA requests to the granting organizations?

    The old site with an active link is a vailable via the wayback machine at:
    http://replay.web.archive.org/20090427145952/http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/research/

  30. Ken Harvey says:

    I first set foot in sub Saharan Africa more than sixty years ago. There has been a little weather variability in that time, but noticeable to the average person only in El Nino times. Up and down southern Africa the climate this year is indistinguishable from the vast majority of years that have gone before. Despite that, here in South Africa we do not lack for AGW hype. For example, we have CFC lamp globes just like everybody else.

  31. Robin Guenier says:

    I’m reluctant to agree with Montag but it seems, Anthony, that you may be reading too much into this. For three reasons:

    1. That Gallup poll is of dubious value – see this – so it probably doesn’t give an accurate picture of sub-Saharan African opinion.

    2. In any case, people may possibly have noticed heavier rainfall and more mosquitoes (even increased temperatures) without knowing that these phenomena were associated with something called “global warming” – not everyone understands the interpretation of that phrase as visitors to this blog understand it. If indeed they’ve even heard of it.

    3. Er … most sub-Saharan Africans don’t live in Rwanda or Zimbabwe.

    REPLY: The one thing that nobody seems able to explain is why was that press release there on April 17th, then gone today, while older documents remain on the web page which contained a link to it. If anyone can explain that, especially in light of UNEP was caught removing another document with a bold claim last week (50 million climate refugees that never mateialized) I’m listening – Anthony

  32. Ed Dahlgren says:

    Montag says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Surely, lead poisoning must be a myth!

    The post is about withdrawn documents. Your comment is about being a skeptic of climate skepticism. Your sarcasm is wasted by being off-point.

  33. R. de Haan says:

    Now we need the UN to ‘disappear’.
    What can we expect from a political body selling hubris to the world at astronomical costs putting countries like Syria on the seat of the UN council for human rights?

    I’ve never seen such a corrupt overpaid bunch of mafiosi in my life.

  34. Mike Bromley the Kurd says:

    Robin Guenier says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:49 am
    In any case, people may possibly have noticed heavier rainfall and more mosquitoes (even increased temperatures) without knowing that these phenomena were associated with something called “global warming”

    They may possibly have, and then again, they may not. Have you?

  35. kevin says:

    In general, I agree.

    However, this statement “So it could not be some sort of date related automatic deletion of a 2001 document” is not necessarily true.

    It could be related to some other deletion. Maybe they save panel reports but not press releases.

    I only bring this up, because I think the skeptic’s own logic should be solid. A better statement would be “it probably is not part of some sort of automatic deletion.”

  36. sceptical says:

    Mr. Watts, ” They aren’t aware of it because the “hitting hard” of global warming in Africa simply isn’t happening.”

    A bit of a jump to a conclusion. You offer no evidence of your conclusion in this post. I am skeptical of the conclusion you draw without evidence.

    REPLY: Define then, “hitting hard” in the context of the UN global warming claim. If you live somewhere, and are “hit hard” by some effect, natural, man-made, you usually know about it. The fabricated ones are the ones you miss. – Anthony

  37. Smokey says:

    sceptical,

    As with all alarmists, you have the scientific method backwards. It is you who have failed to show verifiable evidence for CAGW.

  38. John Blake says:

    From c. 1879 – 1928, linguists compiled the classic Oxford English Dictionary by literally reading everything ever written and recorded in the Mother Tongue.

    Now that paleo-Climate Hysterics are purging their archives, hiding the decline in Warmist credibility, realist task-forces might begin a systematic assessment of all things IPCC since 1999 if not 1988. Lord knows what asininities may stand revealed… but absent such concerted effort, you can bet that Railroad Bill Pachauri is e’en now ensuring that his Ministry of Truth will not be scrutinized unduly.

    AGW catastrophists can no more withstand exposure than Dracula can sunlight. The lids of their coffins open, but their day-of-reckoning ain’t here yet.

  39. Paddy says:

    I searched on Alta Vista for ‘climate change + africa hardest hit.” The is a plethora of news articles and NGO cited drivel that are listed. This following is from a Madagascar environmental science blog, Mongabay.com:

    http://news.mongabay.com/2007/0410-africa.html

    “Climate change will worsen drought, hunger in Africa
    mongabay.com

    April 10, 2007

    Africa will suffer the brunt of climate change reports the latest installment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    The IPCC says that the projected increases in greenhouse gas emissions will put up to 1.8 billion more Africans “at risk of water stress” this century. Modest rises in temperature will reduce water availability in parts of the continent.

    “Between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will be at risk of increased water stress with a one degree C rise; between 350 and 600 million with a two degree C climb and up to 1.8 billion if temperatures rise by three degrees C which could happen by around 2080,” stated a release from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

    The report says that rising sea levels, especially in coastal East Africa, could cost as much as 10 percent of GDP. Tourism is also expected to take a hit as wildlife migrates and becomes endangered and temperatures climb, making the climate less hospitable to visitors.”

    I speculate that the IPCC report cites the disappeared UN Report.

    I quit using Google and Bing after noticing that that the search presentations are quite biased and politically oriented.

  40. Theo Goodwin says:

    Robin Guenier says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:49 am

    “2. In any case, people may possibly have noticed heavier rainfall and more mosquitoes (even increased temperatures) without knowing that these phenomena were associated with something called “global warming” – not everyone understands the interpretation of that phrase as visitors to this blog understand it. If indeed they’ve even heard of it.”

    Careful, you might find yourself in a controversy over just what effects can be associated with global warming. The mosquitoes canard has been known since the premiere performance of “An Inconvenient Truth.” In my humble opinion, Warmista do not have a clue what observable phenomena can be associated with global warming. There is not one of them who has spent a life working the land. Being an eco-tour-guide does not count.

  41. CRS, Dr.P.H. says:

    Thanks for your hard work on this one, Anthony!! This is like an Internet version of Bradbury’s “Fahrenheit 451″!!

    I’ve noticed these “disappearing articles” for some time now. A few years ago, the UNFCCC website announced an news item that said that “rice paddy agriculture was the largest source of manmade GHG emissions.”

    My jaw dropped….it is probably a factual statement (due to methane having a GHG equivalent of 21 x CO2, and also high emissions of N2O), but I couldn’t believe that such a contradictory article would be let loose! Forget fossil fuels etc., go after the poor Asians??

    Unfortunately, no matter how many times I’ve looked via Wayback Machine etc., I have never been able to find that particular entry. Word to the wise – if you see a “plum” floating by, grab it for future reference!!

  42. sceptical says:

    Smokey, as with all alarmists, you have changed subjects by offering an unrelated response.

    To begin to learn about the evidence for AGW, I would reading the IPCC reports which are available online.

  43. sceptical says:

    Perhaps the press release disappearing is releated to the posts disappearing from this site.

  44. Robin Guenier says:

    Anthony:

    You ask why “nobody seems able to explain is why was that press release there on April 17th, then gone today …” Here’s a suggestion: like you, the UN thought that the Gallup poll finding disproved their “hardest hit by global warming” claim, so immediately “disappeared” the claim.

    The only point I’m making is that, for the reasons I set out in my earlier post, the poll probably did no such thing. That doesn’t, for course, mean that the claim was valid. But establishing that would require real data, not a dubious poll.

    REPLY: The poll is data, and I’ve never heard of anyone accusing Gallup of running “dubious” polls. They conduct them with integrity and control. I hear what you are saying, but in the previous episode last week where the 50 million climate refugees document was “disappeared” the UNEP did that in response to a blogger asking a question; “where are they” and then the answer “they don’t exist” being picked up by MSM, specifically Fox News. The Gallup poll is getting some similar press coverage. I believe this to be more than coincidence. – Anthony

  45. Smokey says:

    sceptical,

    The entire issue is about CAGW. You call scientific skeptics “alarmists” and label youself a sceptic. Psychological projection of your own faults onto others; Orwell called it “doublethink.”

    I’m no climate alarmist my friend, and you are certainly no skeptic. And BTW, I have read the UN/IPCC reports; each one gets progressively less scientific. AR-1 was at least arguable. By AR-4 it was just WWF propaganda.

  46. RockyRoad says:

    Can I hope the UN continues to “disappear” content until there’s no UN left? Am I being to optimistic? Gosh, one can only hope.

  47. Mike Jowsey says:

    Aside from the disappearing act, the article itself is just crappy scaremongering. Yes, mosquitoes thrive in wetter, warmer microclimates. But there is no empirical evidence to show that CAGW is actually causing this. Only speculation and arm-waving.

    The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene published a 2006 paper by Minakawa et al which found land use change was the major player in how mosquito populations change.

    Increased human activity, such as deforestation and wetland reclamation, has altered microclimates in the East African highlands. Recent studies found that larvae of A. gambiae s.l. occur more frequently in temporary pools in cultivated areas than in those of wetlands and forests in the highlands of western Kenya.18,19 Because cultivated areas without tall vegetation receive more sunlight than wetlands and forests, water temperature of aquatic habitats in cultivated areas becomes warmer. As our study showed, immature stage development and survival rate are enhanced in cultivated swamps where water temperature is higher. Moreover, Lindblade and others5 found that maximum and minimum air temperatures were significantly higher in communities bordering cultivated swamps in a Ugandan highland, and they found more malaria vectors in houses near cultivated swamps. Thus, such environmental changes may increase vector abundance by enhancing breeding habitats and also by enhancing adult stage longevity and fecundity of A. gambiae in houses near cultivated areas.

  48. Paul says:

    Something you will never find on a warmist website:

    http://ccb.colorado.edu/ijas/ijasno2/georgis.html

    It was written some time ago but, I think you will agree, puts paid to any nonsense about man causing climate change in this part of Africa

  49. HaroldW says:

    Anthony –
    My apologies, I must have misread the post; I thought you were seeking the report to which the press release referred.

    The page you link, where the press release used to be — http://hqweb.unep.org/Documents.multilingual/Default.asp
    – has a limited content. With the exceptions of the two items you show from that page, all documents seem to be from Oct 2001 to March 2004. UNEP’s primary archive of press releases appears to be http://hqweb.unep.org/newscentre/default.asp?ct=pr&scope=all . But it too does not contain the press release in question. It does go back in time that far (and farther), e.g. it contains a press release of 19 Feb 2001 on the publication of the TAR WG II volume.

  50. Crispin in Waterloo says:

    There are just so many things to comment on so early in the blog!

    Montag: lead poisoning? There is lead in all soil. Same for mercury, uranium, thorium and lotsa other things. Granite is radioactive. There are so many ‘dangers’ one can wave hands about. Get a grip. Global warming, now that we know it doesn’t exist in the near term, has fallen below background lead as a danger to anyone. Turns out we evolved on this planet, you see.

    Anthony wrote: “The UN isn’t stupid enough to remove the WGII report, but apparently they ARE stupid enough to start removing (twice now) other documents that make bold claims that have not been proven true after years.”

    Seems to me it is more like prophecies than claims. These projections or predictions or prognostications were of course based on models grounded in solid climate science and agreed to by something like 97% of the scientists whose income depends on inflation of the scare. (I always wondered about the other 3% who were dependent but honest enough to disagree.)

    The whole point of science and engineering (like, climate engineering) is to be able to make accurate predictions. Lacking any ability to make meaningfully correct predictions indicates it is not science as ordinary engineers and physicists and geologists and dare I say, climatologists are concerned. If a random guess consistently outperforms the ‘climate science’ of 2001, then we have something like:

    _____1_____ = Truth
    Climate science

    There are a LOT of contaminated and shrill documents out there which need to be expunged. It’s going to be an interesting year.

  51. Jeremy says:

    Not to get too far OT, but does it seem like this Birth Certificate release is altering the comment population here today?

  52. pwl says:

    [:)] Enjoy.

    Traveling back in time here is the full text of the article from 9 Jan 2008 from the link: http://replay.web.archive.org/20080109120412/http://www.unep.org/Documents.Multilingual/Default.asp?DocumentID=192&ArticleID=2776&l=en

    Global Warming: Africa Hit Hardest

    Nairobi, 22 February 2001 – Rising levels of disease, famine and poverty are forecast for Africa by scientists studying the impacts of global warming.

    A report, published today (MON) by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says heavy, monsoon-like, rains and higher temperatures will favour the breeding of disease-carrying mosquitoes, allowing them to thrive at higher altitudes.

    “Higher temperatures, heavier rainfall and changes in climate variability would encourage insect carriers of some infectious diseases to multiply and move further afield,” says the report by the IPCC’s Working

    Group II.

    The report cites how malaria cases in the highland area of Rwanda have increased by 337 per cent in recent years with 80 per cent of the climb linked with changes in temperature and rainfall which improved breeding conditions for malaria-carrying mosquitoes. A similar link has been reported in Zimbabwe.

    The report notes that mosquitoes can also transmit many viruses, over 100 of which are known to infect humans. These include malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, and severe and sometimes fatal encephalitis and haemorrhagic fever.

    Cholera, which is transmitted by water or food, could aggravate health problems in many parts of the world including Africa. The scientists say that during the 1997-1998 El Nino excessive flooding caused cholera epidemics in Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique.

    There is evidence that El Nino, a vast natural climatic phenomenon that can bring intense floods and droughts in many parts of the globe, is becoming more frequent as a result of global warming.

    Klaus Toepfer, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) which along with the World Meteorological Organization launched the IPCC, said yesterday:” This latest assessment makes bleak reading for many people across the developing world and in particular for us in Africa”. UNEP is headquartered in Nairobi, Kenya.

    “We must re-start the stalled climate change negotiations as a first step towards the deep cuts in emissions from factories, power stations, cars and homes, needed to curb damaging climate change. But we also need to help vulnerable people to adapt to the impacts and that action needs to be taken now,” he said.

    Mr Toepfer added:” We must prepare across all sectors of society including governments, aid agencies, non governmental organizations and the United Nations family of which UNEP is part. We do not have too much time, but there may be enough to make a real difference to those at risk if we start today,” he said.

    While heavy rains will become more frequent, there will also be rising levels of drought and the spread of deserts such as the Sahara, the scientists warn.

    “In Africa’s large catchment basins of Niger, Lake Chad and Senegal, total available water has decreased by 40 to 60 per cent,” says the report.

    The scientists predict that, in terms of droughts, southern Africa could be one of the hardest hit areas. “Lack of rain, warmer temperatures and increases in evaporation could reduce yields by a third or more in these areas,” it says.

    Farmers in the developed world may get access to new varieties of crops which are more heat- and drought-tolerant. But the scientists warn that in the developing world many farmers have little or no access to new species and varieties. “They may struggle to cope when conditions are warmer and drier,” says the report.

    In developing countries today, 790 million people are estimated to be undernourished. Undernourishment is a fundamental cause of stunted physical and intellectual development in children, of low productivity in adults, and of susceptibility to infectious disease.

    The scientists are reasonably confident that climate change will increase the number of undernourished people in the developing world including Africa.

    Food shortages as a result of climate change may add to the numbers of people leaving the land and migrating to urban areas which in turn could lead to more shanty towns around African cities.

    “Those most at risk are the squatter and other informal urban settlements, where many people live close together under poor shelter, with little or no access to resources such as safe water and public health services,” says the IPCC study.

    These people will also be at greater risk from natural or climate related disasters to such as cyclones as “there is little they can do to avoid disaster, or escape when it strikes”.

    The scientists believe that there may be significant extinction of plants and animals in Africa during the new century as a result of global warming. This will increase poverty by impacting on rural livelihoods and

    tourism.

    “Coastal settlements in, for example, the Gulf of Guinea, Senegal, Gambia, Egypt and along the East-Southern African coast would be adversely affected by sea-level rise through inundation (flooding) and coastal erosion,” says the report.

    Some action to protect vulnerable people in Africa has begun, the report notes.

    The IPCC’s First Assessment Report in 1990 highlighted the critical need for better early warning systems. Since then, seasonal forecasting for Africa has become vastly more detailed and accurate.

    Satellites, for example, can now measure ground moisture, which could let local officials issue flooding warnings in advance to endangered communities, and prepare for health risks such as malaria

    outbreaks when there is more water for mosquitoes to breed in.

    Early famine warning systems have been set up throughout Africa, giving at least several months’ notice of drought and water shortage. In South Africa and Zimbabwe, maize growers now get warning of drought six months before harvest.

    Drought warnings do not in themselves prevent famines, however. Measures that would improve Africa’s food security include transfer of overseas expertise in producing food under excessively hot, dry

    conditions.

    Transfer of new technologies could reduce the need to cut down trees for use as firewood and charcoal – thus also stopping the onwards march of desertification. Solar, wind and biogas energy are being

    used in small-scale projects continent-wide, with promising results. In rural areas of Zimbabwe, for example, biogas units using cattle dung are producing electricity for nearby communities.

    UNEP, with funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), are developing schemes like these in Africa.

    Desertification has sparked a range of agricultural and forestry management changes which will also help soften the impacts of climate change. In Niger, farmers with access to credit are setting up low-cost systems which combat wind erosion, including windbreaks, mulching, ridging and rock bunds.

    Recently the Sereer in Senegal and the Mossi in Burkino Fasso improved their regional climates by using traditional pruning and fertilizing techniques to double tree densities in certain semi-arid

    areas. The trees hold the soils together, reversing desertification. More trees also means more rainfall: the foliage of the extra trees produces more evaporation, which then can fall again as rain.

    Initiatives carried out at the community level seem to work best, says the IPPCC report Community-scale projects in Madagascar, Niger and Zimbabwe, for example, show that if an affected community is given the time to discuss options for making their land more productive, they work out efficient solutions and apply them long-term.

    Regional-scale cooperation is also important. Many of Africa’s river basins are shared by more than one country, and to avoid potential conflicts, regional agreements on cooperative management of

    shared water resources have already been negotiated.

    The Zambesi, for example, is to be diverted towards the south, sending surplus water into regions where water is scarce. Other cooperative flood planning envisages using one country’s lakes to store some of a river’s floodwaters, reducing the flood peak and destruction in countries downstream.

    For more information, please contact: Nick Nuttall, Media Officer, UNEP, P.O. Box 30552, Nairobi, Kenya: Tel: 254 2 623381, mobile, 254 (0)733 632755, e-mail: nick.nuttall@unep.org or Tore Brevik, UNEP Spokesman/Director, Communications and Public Information, in Nairobi on Tel: 254 2 623292, fax: 254 2 623927, e-mail: tore.brevik@unep.org

    See also http://www.grida.no for a series of useful and downloadable graphs, http://www.unfccc.int for official documents about the climate talks, and http://www.wmo.ch and ww.unep.ch/conventions/info/infoindex.htm

    for additional background information.

    UNEP News Release 01/27

  53. Cassandra King says:

    The UNEP/greenpiss/fiends of the earth reports are not meant to be true or even a representation of the truth, they dont have to be even based on reality because the aim is to alter public perception. The ends justify the means right? Tell some lies for the good of everyone, then tell some more and then to cover up the first lies then tell some more lies and before you know it its hard to remember a time when lies were unacceptable. Its not long before those who lie to promote a perceived good can no longer tell what is right and what is wrong like being lost in the fog.

    The art of propaganda and its application, blatant lies dressed up with a singular aim, to alter public perception. Think of the hundreds of wild claims, the thousands of MSM reports and stories promising doom and imminent disaster, each story more spine chilling than the last and all crammed with ifs/mays/coulds/possiblys alongside terms like scientists say, the science is telling us and laced with all the fearmongering they can stuff in. None of it is meant to be a representation of the truth because that is not the purpose of these reports

    All these reports are nothing more than disposable tools to provoke a desired reaction
    in order for the rotten establishment to further its aims, after the fact who is going to dig and find out the truth and even if the truth comes out so what? Once public perception of reality has been perverted it doesnt matter. Gangs like UNEP have an agenda to craft and a supportive narrative to create, whipping up fear gives them an air of credibility, spewing out patently false propaganda serves to assist their acquisition of more power.

    The art of propaganda is well known and it has been employed to peddle the CAGW fraud, a full spectrum propaganda campaign to alter the publics perception of reality. Now the propaganda campaign to frighten and scare the public into accepting wholly unacceptable changes can only be sustained by ever greater lies and attendant deceptions until the trusting nature of people is stretched so far it snaps and fails. This is inevitable and when the break occurs and the publics trust in the established institutions is broken then nothing emanating from once trusted institutions will be believed.

    The people who dreamed up the CAGW fraud decided to use the tools of propaganda to further their cause, one can only suppose they believed they could ride the beast for a short period until it was no longer needed, nothing could be further from the truth. The earth is not playing the CAGW game, reality is not playing along. The lies to support the CAGW fraud got bigger and the claims ever more wild, people began to notice that the observed reality that they experienced differed from the fabricated reality being pimped through a compliant MSM via corrupted ‘institutions of public trust’ and the gap gets wider every day and to compensate the CAGW claims get ever more unbelievable and ridiculous.

    The lie can only be sustained while the truth is suppressed, to sustain the lie the truth must be hidden and when the truth can no longer be hidden the lie is seen for what it is. This is the ultimate end for all propaganda campaigns. Hundreds of billions of pounds lost, years of ultra precious time lost on a giant fraud with nothing to show for it other than the wrecking of public trust in its higher establishments. Peter cried wolf but the real tragedy is of course that if and when the real wolf comes a calling people will ignore the danger.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive? The peddlers of CAGW should have repeated this simple old saying to themselves, they believed they could beat the system, they were wrong. We could have told them at the very start how it would all end, any normal person could have foreseen the consequences of their actions.

  54. sceptical says:

    Smokey,

    I am no alarmist and you are no skeptic. My post was about unevidenced conclusions. You turn it into an issue about all “alarmists” instead of responding to the issue at hand. Over generalizations does no good. If Mr. Watts wants to offer conclusions about what the poll he referenced shows, his conclusions would be much stronger with evidence backing the conclusion.

    How many times was the WWF referenced in the AR4?

  55. Robin Guenier says:

    Anthony: far from suggesting coincidence, my view is that the UN “disappeared’ the report precisely because, like you, they thought the poll finding refuted their claim. That demonstrates dishonesty on the UN’s part.

    But it doesn’t settle the question – does the poll refute the claim? I believe it doesn’t – for these reasons:

    1. A sample of “approximately 1,000 adults … in 111 countries”, i.e. about 10 per country, is a wholly inadequate.

    2. The value of findings from “face-to-face and telephone interviews” is at least questionable when many respondents don’t have telephones, many are virtually inaccessible and few speak English.

    3. As I’ve said, the phrase “global warming” probably means little to many respondents – and, although the poll is supposed to be about the theory of man-made global warming, there’s no reason to assume most respondents associated “global warming” with human activity.

    4. Again as I’ve said, people may have noticed heavier rainfall and more mosquitoes (even increased temperatures) without knowing that these phenomena were associated with that phrase “global warming”.

    5. Questionnaires without a “don’t know” or “unsure” option can produce inaccurate results.

    It seems to me that this is an inadequate poll. Better data is needed to refute the claim.

  56. Z says:

    There’s a couple of issues with this:

    The claim “Africa will be hardest hit by global warming” – this is a 100% fluff claim.

    First of all, Africa is the poorest continent. It is safe to say that they will be the hardest hit by almost anything. The poor always suffer more when things go wrong. They’ll probably be hit hardest by a Justin Bieber gig – though that may just be because of having some semblence of taste.

    Secondly “will be”. This is the future. Not just any old future, but the future which keeps going into the future. So if in 20 years a given road will be underwater, and 20 years pass and it isn’t, then it was a defective 20 years, and it’s yet to happen. After all, don’t people understand the future tense?

    Also Africa is a convenient dumping ground for disaster, because not too many people live there who can pop up on the internet and say “That didn’t happen!” This is similar to the far northern wastes of Canada which apparently were scorching hot while the rest of the world froze. Again, a convenient dumping ground of statistics that no one is going to contradict.

    So given all of the above, why did the UN shoot this paper given that it was just full of fluff? I can see why they shot the “20 million refugees” paper, but not why they shot this one.

    I can only surmise, there’s something coming, that this paper would have embarrassed. Is there anything due?

  57. A G Foster says:

    But according to National Geographic the Sahara is greening: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/indicators.html

    And according to Time Magazine (1974) the (then) current dessication of the Sahara was due to global cooling (AGC). So if CO2 is causing the Sahara to bloom, burn baby burn!
    –AGF

  58. A G Foster says:

    But according to National Geographic (July 31, 2009) the Sahara is greening:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

    And according to Time Magazine (1974) the (then) current desiccation of the Sahara was due to global cooling (AGC). http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html

    So if CO2 is causing the Sahara to bloom, burn baby burn!

    –AGF

  59. Al Gored says:

    This digital disappearing act is the future, and we are so eagerly digitizing everything.

    As usual, Orwell’s Ministry of Truth and their constant revisions of history come to mind. I assume that ’1984′ is their operating manual.

  60. Espen says:

    I think there may be a different reason for removing this page than that poll: Maybe they removed the page 2 days ago – on World Malaria Day. It must be quite embarrassing that despite all the bad climate change that was supposed to happen in the 10 years since this article was written, substantial progress has been made in the fight against malaria in Africa.

    I quote http://www.rollbackmalaria.org/ProgressImpactSeries/report2.html :
    “An estimated 908 000 malaria deaths have been averted through ITN coverage between 2000–2010, with three quarters of the deaths averted since 2006″

  61. Theo Goodwin says:

    Z says:
    April 27, 2011 at 1:31 pm
    “The claim “Africa will be hardest hit by global warming” – this is a 100% fluff claim.”

    How thoughtful of you! You gave us all the Leftist boilerplate for this claim. Are you going to do that for all future claims? You really should start your own website. It would attract old Leftists for the nostalgia and young Leftists for the education. You could advertise workshops at notable Manhattan universities. Sounds like a winner.

  62. Jan v J says:

    I was born, and spent my first 46 years, in sub-Saharan Africa. Everything Anthony says is correct. The rest of you (when you disagree) don’t know what you’re talking about. Idiots!

    Another bogus climate claim rubbished by reality.

  63. Nick says:

    When the “21 science communicators” get to this, they’ll fix ithe problem and the Google cache wont even return a result.

    If your looking for removed material? I’d suggest you do it soon and often. ;-)

  64. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    Anthony – thanks again for your tireless work in turning over rocks that certain parties seemingly don’t want turned over. Behaviour like this (of the UN) is exactly why ordinary people are switching their views. We all hate being mushroomed.

  65. sceptical says:
    April 27, 2011 at 11:22 am

    “A bit of a jump to a conclusion. You offer no evidence of your conclusion in this post. I am skeptical of the conclusion you draw without evidence.”

    Do you need someone to draw you a map sceptical?

    What we are witnessing in the arena of climate debate, is the lack of transparency, the manipulation or removal of information, and the censorship of information that damages the image of CAGW.

    With each and every malfeasance and impropriety discovered by those of us that don’t blame Co2 on CAGW, the environmental alarmist claims that there is no evidence to justify the claim or the evidence directly contradicts a previous Pro-AGW claim.

    Many of us that post or comment here are met with such denial. All you have to do is read every article here from the last 3 years to witness for yourself the mounting evidence that suggests that the ‘hot-heads’ view does not tolerate any other view, other than their own.

    You are lucky sceptical to have discovered WUWT and should know, that while your opinion may not be that of those that frequent this site, you won’t have to worry about that opinion being censored.

  66. Charlie A says:

    I’m surprised that there haven’t been more comments about the accuracy or inaccuracy of the contents: “The report cites how malaria cases in the highland area of Rwanda have increased by 337 per cent in recent years with 80 per cent of the climb linked with changes in temperature and rainfall which improved breeding conditions for malaria-carrying mosquitoes. A similar link has been reported in Zimbabwe.”

    Does anybody have a copy of the full report? It is always interesting to see whether predictions of calamity withstand the test of time.

  67. Jimbo says:

    It is a fact Africans are hardest hit by global warming. Here is the evidence and it’s all much worse than I could ever have imagined.

    Sahe has been greening
    Malaria may continue decreasing
    Malaria in Burundi to decrease
    Kilimanjaro peak melts due to land use
    Large rise in climate refugees by 2050 – not

  68. Jimbo says:

    Typo:
    Sahe[l] has been greening

  69. sceptical says:

    ClimateForAll, my opinion has already been censored as some of my posts have not been allowed. As far as your conclusions, you offer no evidence to back any of them. Conclusions without evidence was the point of my original post. Going through the posts on this thread I see many conclusions without evidence. It seems to be a place for people to vent without being questioned and any one who does question is quickly labeled an alarmist.

    [Reply: You should save your posts until they are approved and appear. WordPress is very reliable, but not 100%. ~dbs, mod.]

  70. MattN says:

    Why did they ask Developed Asia twice, and get a different answer the 2nd time?

  71. J says:

    I’ve lived in a few countries in Africa and I would just like to point out that any claim that some percentage of Africans know this or that is not absurd, it is asinine. Nothing about Africa would let a person get a poll done in a single country, much less for the whole continent (pace–I know it was sub-saharan, yadayadayda).

    But besides that, how can generalizations be made about “Africa hit hardest” by warming, when it comprises so many unique climactic zones? Well, it is a lot like saying one or the other hemisphere will be hit hardest, which is to say, asinine.

  72. Werner Brozek says:

    “Robin Guenier says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:49 am
    REPLY: The one thing that nobody seems able to explain is why was that press release there on April 17th, then gone today, while older documents remain on the web page which contained a link to it. If anyone can explain that, especially in light of UNEP was caught removing another document with a bold claim last week (50 million climate refugees that never mateialized) I’m listening – Anthony”

    Anthony, is it a coincidence that you mention April 17 above and you had the following on April 16? My guess is that these people are avid readers of WUWT and when they saw the article below, they got really scared and tried to keep ahead of your people who may want to search for failed predictions of any kind.

    “New permanent feature: the “Climate FAIL Files” – help needed
    Posted on April 16, 2011 by Anthony Watts

    Many times, these climate failures get a mention, and then fade into obscurity. When we try to find them later, search engines aren’t as useful or cooperative as we’d like. I want to change that by providing a central repository for such failed claims. I’ll make it a special page, part of our menu bar, with an icon link on the sidebar, suitable for placement on other websites. The Climate FAIL files page exists here.”

  73. Ric Werme says:

    Jeremy says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Not to get too far OT, but does it seem like this Birth Certificate release is altering the comment population here today?

    No.

  74. Mike Jonas says:

    sceptical asks: “How many times was the WWF referenced in the AR4?

    From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/24/the-scandal-deepens-ipcc-ar4-riddled-with-non-peer-reviewed-wwf-papers/

    Here’s an extensive list of documents created or co-authored by the WWF and cited by this Nobel-winning IPCC AR4 report:
    • Allianz and World Wildlife Fund, 2006: Climate change and the financial sector: an agenda for action, 59 pp. [Accessed 03.05.07: http://www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/allianz_rep_0605.pdf]
    • Austin, G., A. Williams, G. Morris, R. Spalding-Feche, and R. Worthington, 2003: Employment potential of renewable energy in South Africa. Earthlife Africa, Johannesburg and World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Denmark, November, 104 pp.
    • Baker, T., 2005: Vulnerability Assessment of the North-East Atlantic Shelf Marine Ecoregion to Climate Change, Workshop Project Report, WWF, Godalming, Surrey, 79 pp.
    • Coleman, T., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, D. Karoly, I. Lowe, T. McMichael, C.D. Mitchell, G.I. Pearman, P. Scaife and J. Reynolds, 2004: Climate Change: Solutions for Australia. Australian Climate Group, 35 pp. http://www.wwf.org.au/ publications/acg_solutions.pdf
    • Dlugolecki, A. and S. Lafeld, 2005: Climate change – agenda for action: the financial sector’s perspective. Allianz Group and WWF, Munich [may be the same document as "Allianz" above, except that one is dated 2006 and the other 2005]
    • Fritsche, U.R., K. Hünecke, A. Hermann, F. Schulze, and K. Wiegmann, 2006: Sustainability standards for bioenergy. Öko-Institut e.V., Darmstadt, WWF Germany, Frankfurt am Main, November
    • Giannakopoulos, C., M. Bindi, M. Moriondo, P. LeSager and T. Tin, 2005: Climate Change Impacts in the Mediterranean Resulting from a 2oC Global Temperature Rise. WWF report, Gland Switzerland. Accessed 01.10.2006 at http://assets.panda.org/downloads/medreportfinal8july05.pdf.
    • Hansen, L.J., J.L. Biringer and J.R. Hoffmann, 2003: Buying Time: A User’s Manual for Building Resistance and Resilience to Climate Change in Natural Systems. WWF Climate Change Program, Berlin, 246 pp.
    http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/climate_change/our_solutions/business_industry/climate_savers/ index.cfm
    • Lechtenbohmer, S., V. Grimm, D. Mitze, S. Thomas, M. Wissner, 2005: Target 2020: Policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the EU. WWF European Policy Office, Wuppertal
    • Malcolm, J.R., C. Liu, L. Miller, T. Allnut and L. Hansen, Eds., 2002a: Habitats at Risk: Global Warming and Species Loss in Globally Significant Terrestrial Ecosystems. WWF World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland, 40 pp.
    • Rowell, A. and P.F. Moore, 2000: Global Review of Forest Fires. WWF/IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, 66 pp. http://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications /files/global_review_forest_fires.pdf
    • WWF, 2004: Deforestation threatens the cradle of reef diversity. World Wide Fund for Nature, 2 December 2004. http://www.wwf.org/
    • WWF, 2004: Living Planet Report 2004. WWF- World Wide Fund for Nature (formerly World Wildlife Fund), Gland, Switzerland, 44 pp.
    • WWF (World Wildlife Fund), 2005: An overview of glaciers, glacier retreat, and subsequent impacts in Nepal, India and China. World Wildlife Fund, Nepal Programme, 79 pp.
    • Zarsky, L. and K. Gallagher, 2003: Searching for the Holy Grail? Making FDI Work for Sustainable Development. Analytical Paper, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Switzerland
    Finally, there are these authoritative sources cited by the IPCC – publications with names such as Leisure and Event Management:
    • Jones, B. and D. Scott, 2007: Implications of climate change to Ontario’s provincial parks. Leisure, (in press)
    • Jones, B., D. Scott and H. Abi Khaled, 2006: Implications of climate change for outdoor event planning: a case study of three special events in Canada’s National Capital region. Event Management, 10, 63-76

    I did a scan for WWF in http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html and it came up with 28 references. I haven’t checked it against the above list.

  75. Mike Jonas says:

    Werner Brozek – re: repository for failed claims. It should be a repository for all claims, not just failed ones.

  76. Al Gored said, “This digital disappearing act is the future, and we are so eagerly digitizing everything.”

    Begging to differ on this one, Al; I predict sites or apps which will routinely check for any odd digital disappearances or changes in online publications, will register such events and classify them. At a click of a command button we’ll be able to reconstruct entire sites and their histories on demand, with all interesting changes highlighted, even with suggestions for possible causes for their deletion or alteration. Digital …as flaky as our data storage systems may be… is ultimately better than paper, parchment, papyrus, clay or even stone. Keep in mind that we have lost most of the world’s “hard” literature produced throughout history due to fires, floods, destruction, decomposition, theft, rats, whatever.

    For the time being, though, we have to rely on Mr Watts and his dogged determination and excellent sleuth work.

  77. Smokey says:

    Mike Jonas,

    I was out for the afternoon, and just got in. You’ve saved me a lot of typing. Thanks.

    There was also this WUWT article, showing that the UN/IPCC alarmists used WWF propaganda, while Pachauri was falsely claiming that the IPCC relied on peer reviewed literature.

    The IPCC is composed of group-think dissemblers, and the people who swallow their spoon-fed propaganda are naive and credulous.

    The only defense is true scientific skepticism: insist that they must publicly archive their methodologies, code and data per the scientific method, and that they must willingly answer any questions from other scientists. Instead, they hide out, censor others, refuse FOI requests, and dishonestly accuse honest scientific skeptics of the very wrongdoing that they themselves are engaging in.

    We’re not talking nuclear defense secrets here. It’s just weather and climate data, paid for by the public. But FOIA requests are routinely stonewalled as a matter of policy, and the climate charlatans are protected because they bring in the grant money. The whole UN/IPCC system is corrupt, and the sooner they are cut off from public funding, the better.

  78. smple citoyen says:

    It happens more and more often. There are companies solely dedicated to erasing traces and such.
    What I do now is make a copy of all relevant documents I find just in case.
    That made me wonder if there were any such organized initiatives (document conservation of sorts) but I couldn’t find anything.
    It is also true of tv interviews which have a much shorter life span than before on the net, unless it is stored by someone on youtube or elsewhere.

  79. HaroldW says:

    CharlieA: “Does anybody have a copy of the full report?”

    As noted above, the report appears to be the WG II volume of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). It can be found online at http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/index.htm .

    The particular section dealing with malaria in Africa (which you seem to be interested in) is found in chapter 10 (Africa). http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg2/pdf/wg2TARchap10.pdf

  80. sceptical says:

    Mike Jonas, it is not worth my time to go through the entire list of 17 references you made (which is a small percentage of the citations in the AR4 so hardly dominating let alone nothing but WWF propaganda), but looking at the first on the list by Allianz and the WWF perhaps it was appropriate. The IPCC referenced the report by saying, “However, in 2006, insurers also began to communicate directly with their policyholders regarding the rising costs of claims attributed to climate change”, which the report by a large insurer (Allianz) and the WWF documented. Hardly inappropriate.

  81. Annabelle says:

    Speaking as an African (born here, lived here for most of my 50-something years): as I write in my part of South Africa, we are having a horrible early winter storm. Proves nothing of course but I can truly say that if I had not heard about global warming through the media and other sources, I would never have noticed any climate change over the course of my life.

    A while ago I attended a workshop of teachers from all over the Eastern Cape area of South Africa, many of whom came from poor rural areas where most people are subsistence farmers. I asked these teachers if they had noticed “global warming” or even “climate change” in their areas, and they all said “not at all”. In fact they were completely uninterested in global warming and said “It’s not our problem”. One said “Environmentalists want to keep us poor”.

  82. sceptical says:

    The second reference (Austin et al 2003) was done by a private company, AGAMA Energy. The IPCC said in reference to this study, “In South Africa, the development of renewable energy technologies could lead to the creation of over 36,000 direct jobs by 2020″

    Neither of the first 2 references you made have anything to do with the science of AGW and both would seem appropriate for the way they were used by the IPCC. Hardly WWF propaganda dominating the AR4.

  83. Betapug says:

    I think Treehugger has the answer to the dissappeared: (http://www.treehugger.com/offshore-wind-farm-clouds-wake-photo1.jpg)

    “Page Not Found

    We’re sorry, we can’t find the page you’re looking for. We think maybe it’s global warming’s fault. Some of our pages were hosted in the Maldives, where rising sea levels have made them increasingly difficult to keep afloat. And some of our pages are unable to find sufficient prey in their changing eco-systems. It’s hard being a web-page in this unpredictable world of climate change.”

  84. sceptical says:

    The IPCC AR4 makes thousands of references from BP to Greenpeace. It would seem to be a misrepresentation to label it nothing but WWF propaganda.

  85. sceptical says:

    Smokey, ” Instead, they hide out, censor others, refuse FOI requests, and dishonestly accuse honest scientific skeptics of the very wrongdoing that they themselves are engaging in.”

    Again you state conclusions with no evidence. This was the point of my first post; conclusions are stronger and more believable if evidence is given which support the conclusion.

  86. david says:

    I live in “sub-saharan africa”, so perhaps i could give an opinion on being hit hard?

    It’s autumn, and very chilly this morning, we had above usual rainfall and lower than usual temperatures this summer, being cloudy, we got less than half our usual sunny hot days.
    What we’re really being hit hard with, is carbon tax. High fuel prices, high electricity prices, green tax on ALL new cars, and soon to be introduced, toll roads for getting to work and back, a veritable war on personal transport.

    So yes, they have to remove these embarrassing war cries before people figure out what a scam it is, and who caused it. Cos there’s a lot of very unhappy people here because of the global warming nonsense.

  87. JPeden says:

    Jeremy says:
    April 27, 2011 at 12:44 pm

    Not to get too far OT, but does it seem like this Birth Certificate release is altering the comment population here today?

    No, as per usual, I’m still going to have to keep looking for more of those gigantic pods.

  88. johanna says:

    Crispin in Waterloo said:

    The whole point of science and engineering (like, climate engineering) is to be able to make accurate predictions. Lacking any ability to make meaningfully correct predictions indicates it is not science as ordinary engineers and physicists and geologists and dare I say, climatologists are concerned.
    ——————————————————————–
    The ‘whole point of science’ has nothing to do with making accurate predictions. While some scientific findings make help to predict what will happen in certain, very specific circumstances, that is a long way from being ‘the whole point of science’.

    I have great respect for engineers, and would be very surprised if they claimed that what they do has anything to do with ‘making accurate predictions’.

  89. johanna says:

    ‘make’ should be ‘may’.

  90. This is a classic!!

    People living in air-conditioned offices to avoid the increasingly stiffling city heat, commuting miles a day, probably never living more than a few years in the same place before going to the next job in a totally different climate – and certainly taking summer vacations in exotic climes …

    telling people are most likely have lived in the same place exposed to all the natural climate for years if not generations … that they are unaware of just how much the climate has changed causing horrendous hardships to them.

    And you know what … having finally settled down in one place for the last 14 years … I HAVEN’T SEEN ANY CLIMATE CHANGE EITHER. Ok, if I were some country bumpkin politician going up to live in the capital, I know how much warmer cities are than the surrounding areas and sure they’re going to get the impression that life is a lot warmer now than it was before they were in office.

    But surely not all politicians and scientists are so stupid as to equate changes in their own lives – often meaning moving into areas of urban heating – with changes in the global temperature?

  91. Alexander K says:

    Rural people anywhere in the world have a different take on the great cycles of seasons and weather from those who live and work in any of the great cities of the world which tend to have their own climates and the populace of them are thus insulated from the realities of the climate of their country away from their city.
    Working inside a centrally-heated building in London, travelling to and from work on crowded public transport and living in a centrally-heated dwelling gives one very little actual experience with the climate, except for the short walk to and from bus stops or train stations and during weekends and holidays. Consequently, city people have a very fragmented and distorted view of weather. I clearly remember my own amused surprise when, not long after arriving in London from New Zealand, some colleagues and I emerged from a meeting into the early evening and a brief, very gentle Autumn shower of rain; one of my English colleagues remarked “It’s chuckin’ it dahn!” I was amazed as, to me, fresh off the ‘plane from living and teaching in a sub-tropical rural area of my country, the shower barely qualified as rain and more resembled fog.
    I was equally amazed when my new colleagues would discuss their ‘awful climate’ over morning tea or lunch and talk of moving to Spain, as so many Brits have done, to enjoy the climate there. The climate of South-East England has a lower rainfall than the bits of Europe seen as more desirable. The same people would occasionally discuss the growing menace of Global Warming and the damage us terrible humans were doing to the world; I listened carefully to my colleagues and came to the conclusion that as they had spent most of their lives in London, the reality of life outside that great city was actually a mystery to them. They thought the occasional Summer excursion made them reasonably knowledgable about wherever they had been to; as good and law-abiding city-dwellers they had obviously accepted the authority of the IPCC along with all the other local and national authorities that governed their lives and innocently spread the message of advancing and potentially catastrophic global warming; the government and the best of the world’s scientists were telling them it was true and so therefore it must be.
    I cannot imagine any group of rural workers anywhere in the world so innocently accepting an idea that ran counter to their experience. It seems quite unremarkable to me that rural dwellers in Sub-Saharan Africa have not noticed the effects of Global Warming or Climate Change when ‘the effects’ may consist of up to a half of one degree centigrade added to an already warm climate.

  92. Espen says:

    One more thing: they’re using two of the most dysfunctional countries in the world as examples – I sincerely doubt that malaria increase in Zimbabwe has much to do with climate at all.

  93. Mike Lorrey says:

    Eventually the UN will realize the only way to permanently disappear documents is to never put them on the web, unless of course they recruit some help from Google.

  94. Montag says:

    I don’t think my lead poisoning analogy is false. People may notice the effects of lead poisoning without being aware of and able to understand the underlying physical causes, just like Africans may notice climate disruptions withouth knowing terms like “global warming” or “human-induced climate change”. Isn’t this obvious? The question “If Africans are the “hardest hit by global warming” according to the UN, how can only 54% of the people in Sub-Saharan Africa be unaware of it (and only 49% of Middle East and North Africans)?” is withouth meaning. Seriously, any 12 year-old will be able to dismiss this is as nonsense (that is, unless he is a climate “sceptic” and sees Anthony Watts as his Leader). For sure, UNEP authors on climate change impacts will not feel threathened by this – in this respect -irrelevant poll. Robin Guenier asserts in a previous comment that the poll is dubious, and in any case, polls should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

    I don’t know why this old press release appears to have been withdrawn. It could be a result of maintenance on web serves, or it could be that UNEP became aware of inaccuracies or misquotations. So what? And what is so special about this press release, anyway? UNEP/IPCC reports, web pages and official press statements are loaded with statements on climate change impacts – why is this particular press release so special? My bet is that the people working in UNEP couldn’t care less about this outdated press relase. UNEP frequently publishes comprehensive reports, and authors are quoted in the media all the time. If you think the UNEP deliberately withdrew the press release because of a gallup poll, you need to substantiate the claim (you know, this is how most people make arguments).

    Robin Guenier says:
    April 27, 2011 at 10:49 am

    “… it seems, Anthony, that you may be reading too much into this.”

    [snip - I'm not interested in the insults from an anonymous coward, if you wish to insult me with such labels, have the courage to put your name to it, otherwise refrain - Anthony]

  95. JayEffDee says:

    Being an ex South African, I found this by Will Alexander very informative as far as Africa is concerned.
    http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB051%20Will%20Alexander%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Africa260706%20with%20picsdraft%20edited%20-%20erin.pdf

  96. King of Cool says:

    I’m not knocking the article. It is interesting from many aspects.

    But why does the USA seem to out of kilter with the rest of the world in that 47% believe that rising temperatures are as a result of natural causes – by far the highest figure with Canada next at 24% ? I am sure that some missiles on this are heading your way.

  97. Stephen Klaber says:

    Spend a little more time on places like AllAfrica.com. Read about the desert expansion into Nigeria and Mali. Africa is heavily hit by climate change. Most of them are too young to know what it was like before. But it is not just the innocent victim. Climate degradation is more about water than greenhouse gases. And the story in water is weeds. Nowhere is it worse than in Africa’s Lake Chad, where Typha Australis (a big cattail) is in control. It dessicates a lake. it buries the lake bed in silt. It cuts the lake off from the groundwater, to the destruction of both. Weeds – like Typha or water hyacinth are all biomass, waiting to be biofuel, compost or fiber. A large portion is fit for human consumption, but caution must be exercised because weeds like to collect toxins.

  98. DadGervais says:

    johanna says:
    April 28, 2011 at 12:17 am
    “…I have great respect for engineers, and would be very surprised if they claimed that what they do has anything to do with ‘making accurate predictions.”
    ————————————————————————————————
    Dear Liberal Arts Major:

    Prepare to be very surprised!

    When an engineer designs a railroad trestle (or anything else for that matter) he/she is making a prediction that a column or beam of a specified dimension and material will be sufficient to support the weight of the freight train which will travel across it. Should that prediction prove false, a lot of expensive rolling stock, freight, passengers and crew will find their trip and their lives abruptly interrupted.

    If it ain’t about making accurate predictions, then it ain’t engineering and it ain’t science!

  99. A G Foster says:

    Klaber obviously didn’t read JayEffDee’s url:

    http://www.fcpp.org/pdf/FB051%20Will%20Alexander%20Climate%20Change%20and%20Africa260706%20with%20picsdraft%20edited%20-%20erin.pdf

    Will Alexander is no novice in African climatology. So who reads more than they write, alarmists or skeptics? Let’s do a poll. –AGF

  100. sceptical says:

    “Define then, “hitting hard” in the context of the UN global warming claim. If you live somewhere, and are “hit hard” by some effect, natural, man-made, you usually know about it. The fabricated ones are the ones you miss.” – Anthony

    Perhaps, since you are the one making the claim, you should define “hitting hard”. Yes, of course, the use of the term “hit hard” means that all climatic effects of global warming on Africa are fabricated. Your reply was the type of evidence needed to strengthen your conclusion. Thank you.

  101. Bomber_the_Cat says:

    It is not just the UN deleting inconvenient data. In the UK, Peter Stott, Climate Scientist at the Met Office, said: “…..the trend to milder and wetter winters is expected to continue, with snow and frost becoming less of a feature in the future. The famously cold winter of 1962/63 is now expected to occur about once every 1,000 years or more”
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html

    This prediction was followed by a very cold winter in 2009 and then by the record-breaking coldest December ever in 2010.
    The Met. Office have now removed the page containing Stott’s famous prediction. But for the moment, you can find it archived here http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20090225.html

    Why do proponents of this rapidly collapsing global warming theory find it necessary to build their case on lies and hiding data? As the greatest scientific scandal of all time continues to unwind,can it be sustained only by dishonesty and disinformation?

  102. sceptical says:

    “Define then, “hitting hard” in the context of the UN global warming claim. If you live somewhere, and are “hit hard” by some effect, natural, man-made, you usually know about it. The fabricated ones are the ones you miss.” – Anthony

    Anthony, pwl earlier in this thread offered up the missing piece. Perhaps you could let us know which of the effects talked about in the piece, you feel have been fabricated.

  103. Questioning Qristopher says:

    Your commentary on the UN’s disappearing act is appropriate considering these articles should remain available in some sort of encyclopedia of releases. This is typical of government practices of late, they make everything “open” but decrease long term study on the subject by quickly removing the available information. This is also true of news media and other resources, as they are quick to remove their own gaffes. Unless you get the original white paper or an original document relating to the information most prime source material is becoming quickly lost because of the drive to digitize everything, regardless of the impact this has on historic documentation.

    Considering I can’t find the minutes on a dozen meetings in UN on line because they too have disappeared and they are unrelated to environment, I am a skeptic of any conspiracy. I also know that UN will delete old material in favor of newer studies, maybe this old study was unfavorable towards climate policy but there was the whole 2007 study which broadly and in depth covered most of this and to my thinking probably replaced most of the older studies. Still the old studies should be archived. It is a fair reprimand.

    However, This commentary fails to raise my skeptic flag considering we lack any demographics on the survey model. Did they ask tribal Libyans, Egyptian office workers, Nigerian oil well workers, Bedouin’s or did they stick to only people who are literate? Without knowing demographics and survey method the results can be skewed in any direction.

    Location based surveys to determine if science is factual is absurd. Determining if a scientific theory based upon human survey is real is as absurd as basing your understanding of chemistry on the common man’s understanding. Ask Americans if they are aware that water is made out of H2O and you might get 80% of the population who know this, ask a goat-herder in eastern Siberia the same question and they may say it is made from the tears of the gods (taking this from a cultural belief of a local tribe in Siberia).

    As you insinuate, desert dwellers may be more in tune with their environment but you are making a huge assumption here, which is that they surveyed desert dwellers, or that the largest portion of those who see climate changing are not desert dwellers. See, like America, most of the middle east is modern. Modern buildings come with modern appliances, the most used one being the air conditioner. How much would you know about climate if you spent 90% of your time in an air conditioned house/office/school?

    Furthermore this begs another question, which is how much change is associated with the natural world versus the supernatural? We are talking about a part of the world who’s fundamental beliefs still strongly rely on spirits in nature. They circumcise women because of a tribal belief (not ISLAM) which is connected to older supernatural powers. Would they even recognize scientific theory over god-theory? If you asked 1000 Christians when the world began, about 500 of them would say it began 5000 years ago (in fact that survey does exist). Does that mean we should completely ignore scientific evidence to the contrary because of local mythos or Christian dogma?

    The original poll made too many assumptions, which is why I think the poll is extremely unscientific. Your response instead of presenting a factual or scientific approach is anything but. It’s using a very poorly executed survey lacking any explanation of methodology to base an insinuation which relies on the idea that sub Saharan and middle eastern peoples are somehow mystically connected to the temperature. That in itself is so unscientific it makes me question your credibility as a skeptic or even neutral observer of science.

    The first questions any neutral observer would have asked were: What portion of those surveyed were rural/desert dwellers? Important because rural dwellers are less likely to have large wells, education and air conditioning. What portion are coastal dwellers? important because most Libyans and other sub saharan peoples are coastal dwellers and while interior dwellers will see an increase in heat, coastal dwellers may see an increase in wind which as you know will decrease local heat. What portion were fundamentalist, the portion of the population likely to be skeptical of any science? what is the age of the respondent? from my understanding temperature change scales to geologic age rather than human chronology. An area impacted by temperature change may take 60 years to change 1 degree, fast in geologic terms, slow in human terms. If your respondents are mostly under the age of 30, it would be impossible to detect, we’re talking temperature increase of a tenth of a degree per year. That’s not detectable by human intuition in any environment unless evaporation, sublimation, freezing, and melting are observed, pretty much only at certain temperature extremes

    I’m not saying I concur with the current theory on global warming and especially not concurring with the anthropogenic causes, but I seriously have issues with all the unscientific assumptions made in this blog. I hope in the future you spend more time being skeptical and neutral and spend less time making baseless assumptions or drawing unwarranted conclusions.

  104. Smokey says:

    sceptical says:

    “… you state conclusions with no evidence.”

    There are volumes of evidence disclosing the chicanery of climate scientists like Mann, Briffa, Wigley, Jones, Famiglietti, Santer, etc., and their pet journals. To help the scales fall from your eyes, you can start right here:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

    And regarding your incorrect belief that the WWF is only incidental to the IPCC [which would still make it wrong, since the IPCC's remit is to use peer reviewed information, not talking points from heavily biased, alarmist NGO/QUANGOs], IIRC the WWF has provided around 40% of all the IPCC’s AR-4 propaganda. It’s getting more blatant:

    http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/04/25/wwfs-chief-spokesperson-joins-ipcc

  105. sceptical says:

    Smokey, nope, no evidence from the internet blog you referenced. Only accusations and inuendo. Your claims about the IPCC and WWF are without merit. Perhaps you should be more skeptical of some of the claims made on the internet.

  106. sceptical says:

    The WWF has supplied about .0001% of the information in the IPCC report.

  107. Kirly says:

    Interesting. Maybe they have Charles Johnson from the now nearly defunct Little Green Footballs helping them with their website. heh.

Comments are closed.